Indiana pizza shop refuses to cater gay weddings, instantly has internet presenc

[Emjay]

Think how many starving children that amount of money would feed. I bet the Christian business owner won't...

I know right?  That's just crazy...

[Devlyn]

I make awesome pizzas and I'm not remotely Italian, Greek or a New Yorker (Go Yankees!).  In fact, I just got a new professional pizza stone yesterday.

I will make pizza for everyone though, even if they are in serious need of a rectocranial extraction.

We'll annoint you with olive oil and make you an honorary Italian! 

[Beverly]

I know right?  That's just crazy...

I would not be surprised to find that the money donated will ruin their lives, or at least complicate it massively. People who publicly receive large amounts of money (usually lottery wins) often find that friends and family expect that they should receive some too "... surely just a few thousand, you have lots and lots, it said so on TV..." and if they say no then "friends and family" quickly become "ex-friends and feuds". If they hand some money out then other people will jump on the band-wagon.

Then there is internal fighting too. One family member might want to give it all away and another wants to keep all of it. Or they might disagree on how it is to be spent.

Large piles of money suddenly arriving out of the blue are not always a good thing.

[Beth Andrea]

There is a fundamental difference.  Refusing to sell generic pizzas to somebody just because they are different is one thing. However, requesting the pizza parlor to host a same sex wedding reception (when you know it is against their belief) is merely discrimination bating as nobody has a wedding reception at a pizza parlor.

There is not a fundamental difference. If the business hosts or caters to marriages at all, then they must do so without regard to any of the "protected classes".

Also, the "nobody has a...reception..." is known as a "only a true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

Also, for example, a bakery should be permitted to refuse providing a wedding cake with "two men" of "two women" figures on top if it is against their belief even if they provide wedding cakes with "opposite sex" figures on top.  That would be no different from telling a male only shop that it must sell female hygiene products. Telling them what products they may/may not provide is a violation of their rights.

That is exactly the reason there are anti-discrimination laws. Back in the day, there were businesses who would not cater to mixed-race couples. Under your reasoning, if a "whites only" cake maker said it was against his/her religious beliefs to purchase or provide a mixed-race decoration, that would be, and is, blatant discrimination.

Many claims of discrimination today are charges by a group of people who desire preferential vs equal treatment. Women have succeeded in breaking down barriers by gaining access to all traditionally male clubs and activities while still maintaining their female only ones. Two specific examples (there are many more): (1) Women sports reporters have gained full access to male locker rooms while still banning male reporters from their locker rooms; (2) women have gained full access to male-only exercise clubs while still maintaining female only access to their exercise clubs (Curves is one of them).

They have kept female-only organizations because they are still a disadvantaged group.

EQUALITY IS STILL NOT ALWAYS EQUAL.

There will always be inequality, and someone has to give somewhere. Even Christianity does not condemn those who interact with "sinners." In fact, Christ himself would not condemn or refuse to interact with anyone, even prostitutes. But he did condemn the self-righteous who felt they could harm others with the faith.

Since the Christian G-d will not condemn someone for providing a service to a "sinning couple", why should any human refuse based on religious grounds?

[Beverly]

There is a fundamental difference.  Refusing to sell generic pizzas to somebody just because they are different is one thing. However, requesting the pizza parlor to host a same sex wedding reception (when you know it is against their belief) is merely discrimination bating as nobody has a wedding reception at a pizza parlor.

The "wedding" is a non-issue. Completely irrelevant - as are the beliefs of the business owners. If they believe that same-sex relationships are wrong then that is fine. All it means is that they, personally should not enter into a same sex relationship. Their belief does not give them the right to judge others who have entered into a same sex relationship.

The idea that people would order pizza to endorse their relationship, or that the delivery of pizza is an endorsement of those who order it is utterly absurd.

[kittenpower]

I would not be surprised to find that the money donated will ruin their lives, or at least complicate it massively. People who publicly receive large amounts of money (usually lottery wins) often find that friends and family expect that they should receive some too "... surely just a few thousand, you have lots and lots, it said so on TV..." and if they say no then "friends and family" quickly become "ex-friends and feuds". If they hand some money out then other people will jump on the band-wagon.

Then there is internal fighting too. One family member might want to give it all away and another wants to keep all of it. Or they might disagree on how it is to be spent.

Large piles of money suddenly arriving out of the blue are not always a good thing.

Look what happened to Jack Whittaker and his family after he won the lottery...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Whittaker_%28lottery_winner%29

[Devlyn]

The "wedding" is a non-issue. Completely irrelevant - as are the beliefs of the business owners. If they believe that same-sex relationships are wrong then that is fine. All it means is that they, personally should not enter into a same sex relationship. Their belief does not give them the right to judge others who have entered into a same sex relationship.

The idea that people would order pizza to endorse their relationship, or that the delivery of pizza is an endorsement of those who order it is utterly absurd.

Yes, that would be completely unheard of...





Also: https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,185881.0.html

Hugs, Devlyn

[Serena]

I would refuse to eat their pizza, as if we even need to boycott such a thing...

[Kylie]

While I disagree with their position and the law, I don't think that throwing hate at people who may just be naive or lack self awareness is productive.  Some people have hate as their motivation.  Everything I have read about this does not lead me to believe that they were full of hate or sought out an opportunity to make this stand.  They were asked a question from someone in the media and they answered.  These people are hypocritical to be sure, but I feel like the outrage and vitriol towards them was so disproportionate to the statement they made about their beliefs, and it obviously backfired.  These people will be rich now, and the most hateful of comments will be cherry picked and used to mock our own requests for tolerance.  I just feel like more is lost than gained from these social media lynchings.  Working through the business community to demonstrate why discrimination is bad for business was obviously the more effective route to change in Indiana and Arkansas.

[Beth Andrea]

The "wedding" is a non-issue. Completely irrelevant - as are the beliefs of the business owners. If they believe that same-sex relationships are wrong then that is fine. All it means is that they, personally should not enter into a same sex relationship. Their belief does not give them the right to judge others who have entered into a same sex relationship.

The idea that people would order pizza to endorse their relationship, or that the delivery of pizza is an endorsement of those who order it is utterly absurd.

There are many ways to demonstrate the love in a couple's relationship, ordering a pizza is no worse the a traditional gown-and-tux or even a "Mexican Star Trek" wedding.

[V M]

The best way to combat haters is with love

[Stanna]

I have to agree with Kylie on this, very well said. Way to much hate in this world. Lets not give ammunition to a group of people that already hate, but instead lets give them a reason to love and understand. My 2 cents.

Stanna

[mrs izzy]

Warning and only one I will give. 

Back on subject of OP

Its nothing at all to do about pizza,  it is about a protected class of religious freedom having the right under law to discriminate under there religious beliefs.

Ok back to regular scheduled OP topic.

Thanks.

[Joelene9]

  I believe that a private business has the right to refuse any customer's business for any reason. Even though that owner's decision offends you. It is the case here. There are laws prohibiting refusal of business due to race or gender, but not of one's apparent sexual orientation vs your religious beliefs. There has been cases that Muslim druggists refusing to sell birth control to women due to their religious beliefs that were upheld recently. A lot of that money donated to that pizzeria came from other conservative religious people other than those of the Christians. This is a hot button issue to the conservative Christian, Jewish, Muslim and others who see this as a threat to do business according to their faiths.
  Just go somewhere else.

Joelene

[Eevee]

  I believe that a private business has the right to refuse any customer's business for any reason. Even though that owner's decision offends you. It is the case here. There are laws prohibiting refusal of business due to race or gender, but not of one's apparent sexual orientation vs your religious beliefs. There has been cases that Muslim druggists refusing to sell birth control to women due to their religious beliefs that were upheld recently. A lot of that money donated to that pizzeria came from other conservative religious people other than those of the Christians. This is a hot button issue to the conservative Christian, Jewish, Muslim and others who see this as a threat to do business according to their faiths.
  Just go somewhere else.

Joelene

But what happens when this goes far enough to be another case of the civil rights movement in the USA or apartheid in South Africa? "Whites only" can easily turn into a "straights only" sign on most businesses. Where do we draw the line?

If it's something that someone was born into and cannot change about themselves, then it should be protected. That goes for anything like race, gender, or sexual orientation. Businesses can still refuse to serve anyone who chooses to be offensive in their actions, but businesses should not be able to refuse business based on who someone is.

[suzifrommd]

  I believe that a private business has the right to refuse any customer's business for any reason.

Would it be OK, with you if all the businesses in a particular town decided not to serve non-passable trans women? Would they be within their rights?

[Joelene9]

Would it be OK, with you if all the businesses in a particular town decided not to serve non-passable trans women? Would they be within their rights?

I've seen towns like that you mentioned in the past. Some changed over time while those others became ghost towns. I got a friend who calls himself a "Left wing gun nut" who originates out of southern Indiana and he tells me stories about being raised there. He told us ad infinitum about the racism, the Commie bashing, and the antebellum South mores that was going along along the Ohio river in the 1940s, 50s and 60s. After his Army stint, he moved out of Dodge there and came to Colorado and stayed to this day and he stumps for the democratic candidates, his congressman knows him by sight.  There are a lot of conservative business people who cater to those that don't appeal to their religious beliefs or other prejudices. They have to in areas that do tolerate diversity or they're out of business. This coincides with a well known sign on our local restaurants and grocers that says "No shirt, no shoes, no service". But when I visit the beaches in SoCal, the businesses has a sign that says "No shirt, no shoes, no problem! I still believe that a business can refuse a customer if that customer would make other customers uncomfortable or be an apparent health and safety hazard which is backed by local, state and federal laws.
  As with the Hoosier State, time will tell.

Joelene

[Eevee]

This coincides with a well known sign on our local restaurants and grocers that says "No shirt, no shoes, no service". But when I visit the beaches in SoCal, the businesses has a sign that says "No shirt, no shoes, no problem! I still believe that a business can refuse a customer if that customer would make other customers uncomfortable or be an apparent health and safety hazard which is backed by local, state and federal laws.

I'll state it again. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is a situational thing that people can easily change about themselves by wearing those items. That's fine. Discriminating based on who someone is when they cannot choose differently is not at all on the same level. It is discrimination and should not be legal.

[Svetlana.K]

In addition to the overtly hostile and inappropriate reaction by some in the  social media to owner of Memories Pizza inadvertently speaking out publically about their own deeply held religious beliefs, I think that there has been a great deal of 'smearing' and dis-information being spread about the circumstances involved, and then reacted to.

First of all, this law is no  different than laws that already exist in other states as well as being identical to the Federal law passed in 1994 and supported by  Schumer, Pelosi, Obama, as well as many other liberal progressive Democrats.  The law does NOT give an individual the right to discriminate against gays.  What it does do is codify a denial to the State or other subordinate governmental bodies the power to "burden" an individual or business  entity by requiring it to do something which is against the precepts of the owners' religion.  Examples of this would be requiring a Kosher deli to serve pork, or a Muslim owned business to cater a Bar Mitzvah.

It really has nothing to do with gays.  While you or I may or may not agree with the policies or beliefs of the owners of Memories Pizza, I think it is important that we all understand and acknowledge their right to those beliefs. Death threats and hateful remarks on social media does little to encourage tolerance for those beliefs held by many on this forum.

Just because a tiny minority of Americans once abused and mistreated Black people is not a good justification for Black people to abuse or mistreat whites.  Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Kylie]

In addition to the overtly hostile and inappropriate reaction by some in the  social media to owner of Memories Pizza inadvertently speaking out publically about their own deeply held religious beliefs, I think that there has been a great deal of 'smearing' and dis-information being spread about the circumstances involved, and then reacted to.

First of all, this law is no  different than laws that already exist in other states as well as being identical to the Federal law passed in 1994 and supported by  Schumer, Pelosi, Obama, as well as many other liberal progressive Democrats.  The law does NOT give an individual the right to discriminate against gays.  What it does do is codify a denial to the State or other subordinate governmental bodies the power to "burden" an individual or business  entity by requiring it to do something which is against the precepts of the owners' religion.  Examples of this would be requiring a Kosher deli to serve pork, or a Muslim owned business to cater a Bar Mitzvah.

It really has nothing to do with gays.  While you or I may or may not agree with the policies or beliefs of the owners of Memories Pizza, I think it is important that we all understand and acknowledge their right to those beliefs. Death threats and hateful remarks on social media does little to encourage tolerance for those beliefs held by many on this forum.

Just because a tiny minority of Americans once abused and mistreated Black people is not a good justification for Black people to abuse or mistreat whites.  Two wrongs do not make a right.

The law is not identical to the federal law, so you start off on a bad foot right there. There are two important clauses that are not in it and which other states except for South Carolina and Texas have purposefully left out of their laws.  Reason those clauses were left out of most of the state laws?  Yeah, because the wording could lead to discrimination and it takes away the possibility for legal recourse.  I actually think we agree on some of the points here, but you can't call out people for spreading bad information and try to use bad information to do it.

On a separate note, the whole notion of these being "deeply held" beliefs is nonsense.  Everyone makes up their own religion for the most part.  Do you notice that people only take hard lines on issues that don't apply to them personally?  Premarital sex?  Death penalty?  Greed?  Exploitation of the poor?  I could go on and on about the sins "deeply" religious people commit/support but don't take seriously because they take part in them every single day.  There was actually a case on the good wife tonight about a wedding planner who refused to help a gay couple.  The lawyer asked how many times Jesus condemned homosexuality, the answer = 0, the lawyer then asked how many times Jesus condemned divorce, the answer was 2 or 3.  Then the lawyer pointed out that she had aided and abetted numerous divorced people remarry.  I personally don't like this fight, but I like religious exemptions even less because it is all so arbitrary.